Dear Liam,
I just pulled the latest version of gsll. Apparently you have busy as there are quite a few changes. That is great, keep up the good work!
With all the recent e-mail on the test suite I'm wondering how up to date is the status.text file? When I run the test suite on an x86-64 box running Ubuntu 10.04 with SBCL 1.0.39 and a custom built gsl library (mostly some CFLAGS tweaks) I get the following two failures:
EXPONENTIAL: (MULTIPLE-VALUE-LIST (LET ((RNG (MAKE-RANDOM-NUMBER-GENERATOR +MT19937+ 0))) (LOOP FOR I FROM 0 TO 10 COLLECT (SAMPLE RNG :EXPONENTIAL :MU 10.0d0)))) failed: Expected ((0.0025828444588394794d0 18.145581427987647d0 12.636598054339759d0 0.5424387252062355d0 14.624994234158105d0 7.236607929535993d0 0.4345362449683603d0 2.95303920904529d0 6.161052939065796d0 3.011686333539114d0 2.7451079819355364d0)) but saw ((82.61578216370394d0 1.77823538531874d0 3.3214653339021365d0 29.412645812312775d0 2.6351843583734817d0 6.635371453335953d0 31.57709150859036d0 13.637712930094189d0 7.766237034468241d0 13.468928238240315d0 14.268822088229632d0)) EXPONENTIAL: 11 assertions passed, 1 failed.
and:
LU: (MULTIPLE-VALUE-LIST (TEST-LU-SOLVE-DIM (CREATE-COMPLEX-MATRIX 7))) failed: Expected (#2m(#C(24.0717272023734d0 -9.84612797621247d0) #C(-269.338853034031d0 87.5455232472528d0) #C(2966.61356736296d0 -1026.24473923993d0) #C(-18207.3812124749d0 5673.8447304241d0) #C(55769.3879019068d0 -16154.0963210502d0) #C(-78894.1207561151d0 19505.3812987858d0) #C(39554.8551241728d0 -7765.93696255317d0))) but saw (#2m(#C(-81.70598196064235d0 -81.70599595009693d0) #C(3354.209927435102d0 3354.278264591346d0) #C(-31954.85554225817d0 -31956.353685805567d0) #C(119027.61090077131d0 119037.36678048137d0) #C(-203627.71695137964d0 -203653.92708809028d0) #C(160626.5466779804d0 160657.2640539496d0) #C(-47344.00882810219d0 -47357.00253607087d0))) LU: 11 assertions passed, 1 failed.
TOTAL: 4014 assertions passed, 2 failed, 0 execution errors.
a few quick tests of the LU decomp routine seem to suggest that it is working fine so I'm wondering if this is the kind of "numeric fuzz" you were alluding to in a previous post.
With regards, Jason